BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Better Regulation

Ian Lucas: The Government have today published a report on the Benefit-cost Ratio of New Regulations Introduced in the Financial Year 2008-09.
	The report shows that the benefits of new regulations enacted in the last financial year outweighed the costs by £9 billion, at a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 and confirms the Government's commitment to strengthening regulatory management.
	The figures, published as part of a new benefit-cost ratio, showed that overall quantifiable benefits exceeded costs by about 80 per cent., meaning that Government regulation is expected to deliver £1.85 in yearly benefits for every £1 of cost, or a ratio of 1.85 to 1. The publication of the ratio, covering the 2008-09 legislative programme, is a world-first and will be published annually in the future.
	The Pensions Act 2008, aimed at enabling and encouraging more people to build up a private pension income to supplement the money received from their basic state pension, is an exceptional piece of legislation, with the highest benefits and costs in 2008-09, which has a significant effect on the overall ratio. If removed from the ratio, the benefit to cost ratio would increase to 4 to 1.
	The benefit-cost ratio is drawn from the detailed assessments of the impact of new regulation produced by Government Departments and regulators. All Departments and regulators that introduce new regulation that has a significant cost or benefit must produce a full impact assessment which is published in an online library.
	The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all new regulation is justified and proportionate and that the benefits outweigh the costs. It builds on commitments to increase transparency and accountability, following on from the publication of the Government's regulatory programme.
	Regulation provides essential protections to employees, employers and citizens. Striking the right balance between costs and benefits is vital to make sure the regulatory framework is fit for the 21st century.
	A copy of the report is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

Draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2009

Angela Smith: The Draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2009 in Council providing for a census to be taken in England and Wales on Sunday 27 March 2011 has, today, been laid before Parliament. This Order specifies the persons by whom, and with respect to whom, returns are to be made and the topics on which questions are to be asked, and gives effect to the United Kingdom statistics authority's proposals which were set out in the Government's White Paper, "Helping to shape tomorrow", in December 2008.
	The Census is the most important source of demographic and social statistics available in the UK today. It provides the underlying information needed to inform a wide range of policy debates and is used extensively to plan services and allocate funds to local areas.
	The design for the new Census, as set out in the White Paper, builds upon the experience gained by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from previous censuses and, in particular, from the lessons learned from the 2001 Census. The design takes account of the several formal recommendations from the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the former Statistics Commission. It also reflects the concerns more recently expressed by the Treasury Sub-Committee and others about the quality of national and local population statistics generally.
	Consequently, a number of major changes are proposed in the design for 2011 compared with previous censuses.
	Census forms will be delivered to households by post in the majority of cases.
	There will be the facility to return the completed information online.
	A central address register is being developed to facilitate improved form delivery and field management.
	Tighter control of the field operation and the targeting of non-response follow-up will be facilitated by closer monitoring of the delivery of forms and receipt of returns through a questionnaire tracking system.
	The recruitment, training and payment of field staff will be outsourced to specialist service providers.
	The topics proposed for the 2011 Census are set out in the Draft Order, and cover those issues where information is most needed by the major users of census information. The questions have been devised to produce reliable and accurate data. ONS has carried out extensive consultations and testing over a number of years to ensure that the questions are justified, both in terms of the need for the information and public acceptability.
	New questions are proposed on: national identity; citizenship; second residences; language; civil partnership status; date of entry into the UK and length of intended stay (for non-UK born); type of central heating; and number of bedrooms.
	Copies of the 2011 Census questionnaire will be included as part of the Census regulations to be made early in 2010 following the Census Order.
	Following devolution, separate legislative arrangements will be made in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the censuses there. However, the Census date proposed is common throughout the UK in order to maximise comparability, to minimise costs, and reduce public confusion.

TREASURY

Anti-avoidance

Stephen Timms: It is right that all taxpayers pay their fair share of tax. However, there are a minority who continue to seek ways to avoid paying their share. This is unacceptable. It is unfair on the majority of taxpayers, undermines fiscal sustainability, and reduces funding for public services. This Government will not tolerate tax avoidance or tax evasion in any form, and will act promptly to tackle both of these.
	Several tax avoidance schemes have been notified to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) exploiting the sideways loss relief and double tax relief (DTR) rules, so I am today announcing changes to be made to legislation, with immediate effect, to counter these schemes.
	Sideways loss relief
	As made clear by the Paymaster General in her written statement on 2 March 2007, Official Report, column 105WS and the introduction of anti-avoidance legislation in subsequent Finance Acts, the Government will not tolerate avoidance schemes designed to exploit sideways loss relief rules. The Government have recently become aware of a contrived and aggressive avoidance scheme that seeks to generate losses in a professional partnership for offset by users of the scheme against their other income or capital gains by way of sideways loss relief. This scheme relies on the creation of losses through a series of arrangements that are established for the purposes of tax avoidance.
	The Government do not accept that these arrangements have the effect that is sought, but to remove any doubt, and to prevent scheme providers continuing to devise and operate even more contrived schemes that seek to challenge the sideways loss relief rules, I am announcing prompt and decisive action to protect the Exchequer.
	With effect from today a general rule will be introduced to prevent sideways loss relief being given where the loss arises from arrangements and a main purpose of the arrangements is to obtain a tax reduction by means of sideways loss relief. This test does not impact on genuine loss-makers who have not entered into avoidance arrangements.
	Legislation will be introduced in next year's Finance Bill. Full details of this measure including draft legislation will be issued on HMRC's website today.
	Double tax relief: Unauthorised Unit Trusts
	HMRC has been notified that unauthorised unit trusts are being used to avoid restrictions on double tax relief and to generate "repayments" of tax that the UK Exchequer has not received. To counter this, legislation will be introduced with the effect that to the extent any distribution treated as paid by a unauthorised unit trust is paid out of overseas income on which UK tax has been reduced by DTR, the distribution will be treated by the recipient as overseas income under deduction of overseas tax. The legislation will have effect from today.
	A technical note setting out the details of this measure will be issued on HMRC's website today, with draft legislation to follow shortly.
	Double tax relief: Manufactured Overseas Dividends
	HMRC has been notified that some companies are using manufactured overseas dividends (MODs) instead of real overseas dividends in order to disapply the anti-avoidance rules in the DTR legislation.
	To counter this, legislation will be introduced amending the relevant DTR anti-avoidance provision so that it applies to deemed overseas tax deducted from MODs in the same way that it applies to real overseas dividends. The amendment will ensure that the provision can also apply in other circumstances where the UK Tax Acts treat an amount that is not overseas tax as if it were overseas tax. These changes will prevent credits for notional overseas tax from being treated more favourably than tax credits on real dividends. The legislation will have effect from today.
	A technical note setting out the details of this measure will be issued on HMRC's website today, with draft legislation to follow shortly.
	Double tax relief: Manufactured Interest
	HMRC has been notified that UK manufactured interest payments are being used to avoid tax under the rules relating to controlled foreign companies (CFCs) by artificial generation of DTR.
	To counter this, regulations, coming into force today, will be made repealing rules that deem companies to have received UK manufactured interest under deduction of tax. Instead, the recipient will simply be taxed on the amount of manufactured interest it receives with no relief for any notional tax credit.
	HMRC has identified a provision in separate regulations dealing with MODs that would allow substantially the same scheme to be implemented using MODs. To prevent this, regulations coming into force today will also be made ensuring that the MOD rules cannot be used to claim relief for overseas tax in inappropriate circumstances. Instead, the recipient will be taxed on the amount of the MOD it receives with no relief for any notional tax credit.
	Both sets of regulations will be available on HMRC's website today.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Written Answer (Correction)

David Kidney: I would like to inform the House that a written answer I gave on 12 October 2009, Official Report, column 445W to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was incorrect.
	It should not have included reference to the figures including services claims made under Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Vibration White Finger schemes.
	The number of coal health claims that were eligible for a Vibration White Finger services claim is shown in the table below.
	We are unable to provide the number of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease claims that were eligible for a services claim as these figures are included within the schedule 11 calculations under the terms of the Claims Handling Agreement, and it is not possible to isolate them.
	
		
			 Claimants' Representatives Location Number of claims Claim eligible for services Claim eligible for services that have been settled 
			 Ashton Morton Slack LLP AMS (UDM claims only) 500 260 254 
			 Ashton Morton Slack LLP Sheffield 3 2 2 
			 Atherton and Godfrey Solicitors Doncaster 1 0 0 
			 Atteys Retford 136 105 103 
			 Atteys Rotherham 46 41 41 
			 Avalon Solicitors (ceased trading) Warrington 5 1 1 
			 Bakewells Derby 1 0 0 
			 Banner Jones Chesterfield 3 3 3 
			 Barber Cartain Solicitors (ceased trading) Manchester 1 0 0 
			 Bell Dallman and Co. Doncaster 4 4 4 
			 Beresfords Solicitors Doncaster 158 73 73 
			 Beresfords Solicitors Doncaster (UDM only) 569 247 243 
			 BHP Law Belmont 8 7 7 
			 Branton Bridge Manchester 4 4 4 
			 BRM Solicitors Chesterfield (UDM claims only) 1 1 1 
			 Browell Smith and Co. Newcastle upon Tyne 34 22 21 
			 BurroughsDay Solicitors Bristol 3 2 2 
			 Colemans Solicitors Manchester 6 2 2 
			 Corries York York 13 6 6 
			 Davis Blank Furniss Hadfield 1 0 0 
			 Davis Blank Furniss Manchester 4 4 4 
			 Dean Thomas and Co. Solicitors Worksop 3 1 1 
			 Farleys Solicitors Burnley 4 2 2 
			 Flint Bishop and Barnett Solicitors Derby 1 0 0 
			 Foy and Co. - 1 1 1 
			 Foys Solicitors Worksop 43 36 35 
			 Gorman Hamilton Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 8 8 8 
			 Gorvin Smith Fort Solicitors Stockport 9 6 6 
			 Grainger Appleyard and Fleming Doncaster 1 1 1 
			 Graysons Solicitors Sheffield 610 462 452 
			 Hamers Solicitors Hull 1 1 1 
			 Hickmotts Solicitors Rotherham 23 16 16 
			 Holmes and Hills Solicitors Great Dunmow 1 0 0 
			 Hopkins Eden Court, Mansfield 97 84 84 
			 Hopkins Mansfield 1 1 1 
			 Hopkins - 4 1 1 
			 Hugh James Cardiff 3 3 3 
			 Ilett and Clark Solicitors Nottingham 4 3 3 
			 Ingrams Solicitors Hessle (VWF only) 3 2 2 
			 Irwin Mitchell Solicitors Sheffield 98 77 77 
			 Keeble Hawson Doncaster 39 32 31 
			 Keeble Hawson Moorhouse Sheffield 67 46 46 
			 Kenyon Son and Craddock 32 South Parade 1 1 1 
			 Kidd and Spoor Harper Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 163 113 110 
			 Kingslegal Cardiff 1 0 0 
			 Lloyd Green Solicitors Glasgow (UDM only) 1 0 0 
			 Lopian Wagner Solicitors Manchester 4 0 0 
			 Mark Gilbert Morse Newcastle upon Tyne 3 2 2 
			 Marrons Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 1 0 0 
			 McArdles Solicitors Hartlepool 3 0 0 
			 Meloy Whittle Robinson Preston 10 4 4 
			 Mincoffs Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 3 2 2 
			 Morrish and Co. Solicitors Leeds 4 3 3 
			 Mortons Solicitors Sunderland 12 1 1 
			 Moss Solicitors Loughborough 13 9 9 
			 Moss Solicitors Moss UDM Claims Only 501 263 252 
			 O. H. Parsons and Partners Solicitors London 199 161 159 
			 Oxley and Coward Solicitors Rotherham 37 32 32 
			 Pannone and Partners Solicitors Manchester 4 3 3 
			 Parker Rhodes Solicitors Rotherham 1 1 1 
			 Pinto Potts Solicitors Aldershot 1 0 0 
			 Raleys Solicitors Barnsley 239 168 167 
			 Richard J. Knaggs and Co. Redcar 2 2 2 
			 Robinson and Murphy Solicitors Newcastle 1 1 1 
			 Robinson King Solicitors (ceased trading) Stockport 19 19 19 
			 Russell Jones and Walker Solicitors Sheffield 2 2 2 
			 Saffmans Solicitors Leeds 9 6 5 
			 Sedgwick Phelan and Partners Middleton, Manchester 1 1 1 
			 Shaw and Co. Solicitors Doncaster 16 11 11 
			 Shaw and Co. Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 4 2 2 
			 Simpson Millar Solicitors Leeds 3 3 3 
			 Stanton Croft Estate Agents and Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 2 0 0 
			 Stuart Bell and Associates Worksop 143 112 112 
			 The Quigley Partnership (ceased trading) Bolton (do not use) 1 1 0 
			 The Smith Partnership Derby 1 0 0 
			 Thompsons Solicitors Manchester 2 2 1 
			 Thompsons Solicitors Newcastle upon Tyne 26 22 22 
			 Thompsons Solicitors Nottingham 1 0 0 
			 Thornleys Huddersfield 2 1 1 
			 TLW Solicitors North Shields 29 10 10 
			 Towells Solicitors Wakefield 49 31 29 
			 Tracey Barlow Furniss and Co. Retford 1 1 1 
			 Tracey Barlow Furniss and Co. Worksop 9 3 3 
			 Twigg Farnell Solicitors (ceased trading) Rotherham 4 4 4 
			 Union of Democratic Mineworkers Mansfield 1,009 698 693 
			 Wake Smith and Tofields Solicitors Sheffield 6 3 3 
			 Walker and Co. Solicitors. Rotherham 1 1 0 
			 Watson and Brown Solicitors South Shields 1 0 0 
			 Watson Burton LLP Newcastle upon Tyne 131 114 113 
			 Total  5,198 3,380 3,326

HOME DEPARTMENT

National DNA Database

Alan Campbell: I have today placed the National DNA Database (NDNAD) annual report for 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the Library of both Houses. The Government accept the need for ongoing accountability to the public on the operation of the NDNAD. The NDNAD annual report, which publishes details of its activities, is an important part of the aim to increase transparency and maintain and improve public confidence in the oversight, management and operations of the NDNAD.

JUSTICE

Family Legal Aid

Bridget Prentice: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Bach, has made the following written ministerial statement:
	On 20 July 2009, Official Report, column WS156, I tabled a written ministerial statement in respect of our earlier consultation paper, "Family Legal Aid Funding from 2010", published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) which set out proposals for legal aid payments for family work to apply from 2010.
	Although I remained convinced that it is right to proceed with a harmonised family advocacy scheme, I asked my officials to undertake further analysis of the assumptions that underpin the modelling of the fee schemes, to ensure the accuracy of that modelling. This additional work was necessary as there had been some significant changes made to our original consultation proposals following detailed discussion with stakeholders about the structure of both the advocacy and representation schemes.
	In particular, we have introduced more graduation into the fee scheme structure to ensure that those advocates who take on the more difficult and complicated cases are fairly rewarded. In addition, I decided not to proceed with our proposal to remove independent social work from scope in private law cases but will continue to work with Cafcass to determine the best way to use our mutual resources for the benefit of vulnerable children.
	I am now satisfied that the new fee schemes are based on robust data and accurate modelling, and that the final scheme allows us to achieve a reasonable balance between complexity and value for money.
	The new fee schemes direct more money into public law cases to ensure that children and adults at risk of abuse take the highest priority for legal services. The fee schemes do not represent cuts to the family legal, aid budget or to the services received by children and families, but some funding will be moved from barristers to solicitor advocates, as barristers and solicitor advocates will now receive the same fees for the same advocacy work. The fee schemes have been designed to be cost-neutral against 2007-08 average case costs.
	The LSC will shortly publish the response document and impact assessment on their website and the new schemes will be introduced with the new civil contracts in October 2010.